Last week, billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie pledged $2.5 million to help pass a referendum on same-sex marriage in Washington State. With the donation, the Bezoses became the largest public financial backers of gay rights in the country — and the liberal answer to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy, who made waves two weeks ago when he affirmed his company’s opposition to gay marriage. But in terms of what they sell, neither Amazon nor Chick-fil-A has anything to do with gay marriage, so why did Bezos and Cathy each enter the political arena by making a statement on a divisive social issue?

For Cathy, it was a matter of staying true to his family-owned company’s firmly held, long-standing Christian beliefs. Chick-fil-A’s religious ties have always been public information. Not only are Chick-fil-A locations closed on Sunday, but over the years, the company’s charitable arm, called the WinShape Foundation, has given millions of dollars to groups that support its stance on marriage, including the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International and the Family Research Council. But Cathy made his company’s position even more clear on July 16, when he told the Baptist Press that if people were concerned with the company’s views on the traditional family, then Chick-fil-A was “guilty as charged.” He continued, “We are very much supportive of the family — the Biblical definition of the family unit. … We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principals.”

Although Bezos and Cathy have different opinions on gay marriage, the motivation for disclosing their beliefs may have been similar. With his donation to the supporters of Referendum 74 — which would uphold the legislature’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington State — Bezos is essentially reaffirming his commitment to an issue he has publicly supported in the past. Though Amazon has not been as overt in its support of gay rights as Chick-fil-A has been in its opposition, earlier this year, when the Washington State legislature was prepping the same-sex marriage legislation, Amazon added its name to the list of companies that support the measure, which includes Starbucks, Microsoft and Nike, among others.

According to the New York Times, Bezos was prompted to make the donation by a former employee, Jennifer Cast, a lesbian mother of four children. Cast reportedly sent an e-mail to Bezos detailing why the referendum was so important to her and urging his support. “Jeff, I suspect you support marriage equality. I beg you not to sit on the sidelines and hope the vote goes our way. Help us make it so,” she wrote. Two days later, Bezos replied, “Jen, this is right for so many reasons. We’re in for $2.5 million.”

So far the outcry against the Bezoses’ donation has been virtually nonexistent, which might in part be because public support of gay marriage is at an all-time high. According to a Washington Post–ABC News poll in May, 53% of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, while 39% say gay marriage should be illegal. But that’s not to say companies haven’t faced outrage for making pro-gay statements. In February, the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit that opposes same-sex marriage, organized a campaign through its One Million Moms group to protest J.C. Penney’s hiring of openly gay talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres as its spokeswoman. In response to the campaign, J.C. Penney not only stood behind DeGeneres but ran ads featuring same-sex parents a few months later, and One Million Moms eventually abandoned its battle cry.

Similarly, when General Mills, which is based in Minnesota, announced in June that it opposed a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state, many supporters cheered the statement, but members of a group called Minnesota for Marriage staged a small protest outside the company’s headquarters and encouraged sympathizers to drop off unopened boxes of General Mills cereals outside the corporation’s offices.

Even seemingly innocuous gestures have led to full-on debates. In June, Oreo posted a photo of a cookie with rainbow-colored filling on its Facebook page in recognition of LGBT Pride Month. While the company says the majority of the 50,000-plus comments the post received were positive, some commenters said they would stop buying Oreos because of the photo. One comment read, “Think about how much business u just killed oreo. I can’t support a business that supports gays.”

Some companies have found themselves at the other end of the spectrum. In 2010, Target donated $150,000 to a political group that supported Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who opposed gay marriage. Public outrage over the donation spread far beyond the confines of Minnesota, where Target is headquartered, and prompted thousands nationwide to sign a petition to boycott the budget retailer. Target, which has said it made the donation to the group because of its pro-business stance, attempted to settle the outcry by making statements in support of the LGBT community. This May the retailer began selling gay-pride T-shirts, one of which reads, “Love Is Love,” and announced that all proceeds would go to the gay-rights group Family Equality Council.

As these examples demonstrate, regardless of a company’s position on gay marriage, voicing support or opposition is almost guaranteed to spur some sort of public reaction. But sometimes even representatives of companies that prefer to stay out of the political arena feel so passionately about an issue that they throw their opinion into the public sphere. Take Google, for instance. While the company has long been politically active on policy issues that involve technology and information access, it was mostly quiet on social issues until 2008, when co-founder and then president Sergey Brin came out in a blog post against California’s Proposition 8, which stipulated that only marriages between a man and woman would be recognized in the state:

“Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions … we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on. However, while there are many objections to this proposition … it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.”

If Google’s profits are any indication, the search-engine giant is doing just fine despite its political stance. But even if he were concerned about losing some users, Brin might have made the politicized statement anyway. It seems that some company heads feel so strongly about their beliefs that they are willing to risk the consequences. To make a statement that in effect says, If you disagree with me, don’t buy my chicken, Chick-fil-A’s Cathy must have felt confident enough in his brand and conservative Southern roots to risk alienating some of his clientele (though it’s worth noting there’s no evidence to suggest Chick-fil-A discriminates against gay and lesbian customers or employees).

And while the backlash against Chick-fil-A has been fierce — gay-rights groups called for a boycott, and the mayors of Boston and Chicago issued statements urging Chick-fil-A to stay out of their cities — it’s too soon to tell if Cathy’s remarks will translate to less chicken being sold. Regardless, the company has said that in the future, “our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.” Now that it has entered the arena, however, it might not be so easy to leave.

demersus, I believe the reason is that groups such as Exodus keep alive the false belief that you can cure homosexuality. If you check the facts, this type of thinking causes a lot of misery to the point of many suicides. the intention may seem good but the result is cruel. I am no theologian but I think the basic idea is to deal with others with love and acceptance.

Every company that has made a political statement regarding these highly debated topics such as gay marriage either has: huge balls, or firmly believes in their brand to risk losing customers (as stated in the article), or has not thought out well enough the backlash to their actions. In any case, it's debatable whether making a political statement or stance is even worth it for the company - is this a topic that companies should steer away from entirely? It depends on a case by case basis.

I don't understand why people are so fiercely angry with Chick-fil-A. The owner was simply stating his bibilical based beliefs. Isn't he entitled to his own beliefs, just like the people who disagree with him? It's not like his company donated money to a certain side of the argument. (unlike Google and Starbucks). Why is it that Google and Starbucks, who apparently support one side as a company, are not treated so poorly? Oh, I know why... Because if you don't have the 'pro-gay-marriage' opinion, you aren't entitled to an opinion. This whole situation is entirely one sided. It seems the 'pro-gay-marriage' group of people are more vehemently hostile, than the other group. It's just ridiculous if you ask me.

I have an opinion on same sex marriage but I don't like having to choose not to patronize companies that I like, just because they can't just focus on business. Businesses should avoid taking political stances wherever possible. Both Amazon and Chick-fil-A are companies that I would like to patronize going forward. I don't understand why they want to drive away large segments of their markets.

Amazon has great deals and Chick-fil-A has great food. I don't think either one is getting business because of their political stances, but they sure are losing business because of it.

5th paragraph: According to a Washington Post–ABC News poll in May, 53% of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, while 39% say gay marriage should be illegal.

The polls are FAKE. It is incredibly easy to skew polls and the liberal news media, which heavily favors "homosexual marriage", regularly uses polls to tell people what to think rather than find out what they do think. How do we know the polls are FAKE? Because so far the citizens of 31 states have voted to ban "homosexual marriage" in their state constitutions, including ultra-liberal California, though that one is still in legal limbo. Minnesota is likely to be the 32nd state to ban it. 10 more states have laws against it, but no amendment .......... yet. Bear in mind that only 38 states are required to write and ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The only states where it is legal are those where it was FORCED on their citizens by a liberal democrat activist court or legislature and not by a free vote. None of this could have happened if 53% were in favor of "homosexual marriage" and only 39% against.

Learn to spot a lie when the liberal news media tells you one. It's a valuable skill to develop.

To Katie, below: the question of gay marriage isn't just a philosophical one. It is about the human rights of LGBT individuals and their families and about conditioning those human rights on the popular vote.

Chik-Fil-A maintains, and has exercised, its freedom of speech, religion and thought. But nowhere in the Constitution is there a guarantee that exercising this right will be without consequence. Now the public will exercise its freedom of speech--and spending--by choosing whether or not to eat Chik-Fil-A's nasty chicken.

@Dubito...you said that "beatstilaty is a behavior of consenting adults...you want that consenting adult behavior to be authorized as well?". First of all beatstilaty is not a behavior between consenting adults. It's animal cruelty. I don't see where you can make any kind of connection.

"since you claim to be an evangelical". I don't claim nothing friend. I am one. But I also believe in separation of church and state ( within reason) . And I'm willing to extend others freedoms that I don't give myself. I Belive that people are given free will to choose for themselves and with their choices they will be held accountable to God.

I'm not really sure where you are going with the consenting to manipulation argument. I think adults have the right to make decisions for themselves. Whether it means a choice on whom they want to be in a relationship (assuming it is another consenting adult) or what religion they want to follow. Anyone can argue that someone has been manipulated to consent the question is whether you can prove that.

You said that "LGBT does not equal a religion". That is true however the arguments used against it are generally religous in nature. And using a religous argument is generally unconvincing to those who don't subscribe to your religion.

You said that "LGBT is a behavior". And I am not disagreeing with you here. However fornication is also a behavior. Divorce is also a behavior. I think that both are sins. Yet both are legal in our country.

You questioned "You are an evangelical and you think that God condones such behavior". I never said such a thing. Nor do I condone it. I believe the Bible when it comes to these things. Yet many people don't believe what I believe and since we don't live in a theocracy (as they did in Leviticus) I don't necesarily belive my convictions should be the law of the land for everyone el

You said that "LGBT does not equal a religion". That is true however the arguments used against it are generally religous in nature. And using a religous argument is generally unconvincing to those who don't subscribe to your religion.

You said that "LGBT is a behavior". And I would agree with you. However pre-marital sex and divorce which I also believe are wrong are legal in this country. I don't condone either. But it would seem silly to enforce laws in the society that we live in that would make these free choices illegal.

You questioned "You are an evangelical and you think that God condones such behavior". I never said such a thing. Nor do I condone it. I believe the Bible when it comes to these things. Yet many people don't believe what I believe and since we don't live in a theocracy (as they did in Leviticus) I don't necesarily belive my convictions should be the law of the land for everyone else.

The bullying and outright attacks on people and corporations that don't agree with a particular stance is very UNAMERICAN!!!! One of the principles this country was founded on is "Freedom of Speech" This has to apply to everyone or it works for no one. Mr. Cathy was asked is opinion and he answered honestly. He earned his money so he has the right to use it to support whatever causes he chooses. We as the public have the right to spend our money wherever we choose as well. The mayors of cities that are speaking against his restaurants being in their states are idiots whose constituents should vote them out of office. We are in an economically depressed time and they are more concerned about his personal beliefs than bringing much needed jobs to their communities. I don't support Gay marriage but I still plan to purchase from Amazon and other companies that do because they are entitled to feel how they feel as well.

It is beyond me why any business that wants to be profitable would take any kind of political/social stand. Especially on one that is controversial and polarizing. It makes no business sense at all.

Whether it would be Chik-a-Fila or Amazon or Starbucks. Why would you want to alienate any of your customers and potentially lose their business.

As far as the gay marriage debate goes as an evangelical I do believe in "traditional marriage". I also believe that there is only one true religion however I also prefer not to live in a theocracy. There is separation of church and state. And just as I don't want a law that forbids Americans from following Buddah or Mohammed I don't want a law that forbids consenting adults for making a life decision that brings them their own happiness.

hey doomsday Christians,isnt the downfall of America part of Gods plan, so that the Apocalypse can happen? isnt the world supposed to go to war with Satan? If gay rights leads to our destruction, then why hamper with Gods plan? Why do you fight a losing cause? Is God too weak to defend himself? Why do you need to pass marriage laws banning two same gender people who love each other if the result is your beloved End-Of-The-World? Its what you want isnt it? If we are doomed and there is no way out of the Apocalypse, then quite resisting and just let your mythical scenario play out. Christianity is inanity at its best.

Jeff Bezos (Amazon CEO) chose to politicize his $2.5 million dollar donation to gays and I choose not to shop at Amazon. It USED to be a FREE Country with FREE SPEECH (guess the "Free Speech" only applies if you AGREE with the Far-Left ideologues?).

And finally, Amazon is allowed to have an opinion of Gay Marriage but Chick-Fil-A is not?Typical Libbie HYPOCRITES.

Time, how do I get my font to lean so far to the left? I can only get mine to stand up straight. Amazon "helps" and Dan Cathy "makes waves". Gay rights (an oxymoron) are "supported", but traditional family values are "opposition and bigotry". Dan Cathy answered a biblical question in a biblical setting, the media made this into a circus. Mr. Cathy answered a question that 29 states have answered, while 3 more states provided an answer, but their voters were slapped in the face by judges that overturned their democratically achieved decision.

Christians, we did this to ourselves. Our religion welcomes all, but that should not mean we accommodate all. We let the media chip away at us in small pieces that don’t appear harmful, but they are. Do we offer patronage to NAMBLA next? We can stand our ground and continue to be Christians.

The company's opposition to same-sex marriage , as with any opposition to such marital arrangements; have nothing to do with nuptials. The opposition is to the very existence of homosexual persons, period. And yes; they have the right to their oppositional stand. Mind you, it flies in the face of the most common reference to marriage found in the Bible, which is polygamy. No one is; or can; interfere with their rights to freedom of speech, religion or thought. When an issue is as significant as ones state of being, however; one can choose not to patronize their business.

It seems the argument is in trying to change the definition of a word. By definition, a marriage is between one man and one woman. Everyone is free to marry. So why call gay unions marriage? It is not.

The only reason that Amazon got no criticism for supporting the gay marriage referendum is that the Liberal media attacks anyone and anybody that is against it. A good example is Chick Fil-A.

More people don't care either way these days, but it does not necessarily mean that they are strong supporters of the Gay Marriage referendum..it is just "fatigue" because the Liberal media relentlessly support it along with other liberal agenda's.

Marriage has been known as between a man and women for over 2000 years. Why change because the Liberal media has supported this avidly for the last 20 years? What next.. marriage between humans and pets.?

The premise of this article is a misnomer: Bezos and Bezos made personal contribution that spoke of the personal beliefs using their personal fortune; Cathy made a statement about his company's practices and belief structure and what his company stands for. This debate is not company vs. company, but rather a private individual and a private company. Thus, this article sets up a false debate.

The difference is that Cathy of Chick-fil-A responded WHEN ASKED his opinion. Will the media labaste Jeff Bezos the same way? And if some star comes out and says that anyone who orders from Amazon should get cancer, like Rosanne Barr did about anyone who eats a a Chick-fil-A, will they get a "pass" from the media like she did?

It' a matter of civil liberties and this is where the separation of church and state comes into play. I personally opposed gay marriage but not allowing "gay" people to marry and receive similar benefits a regular married couple enjoys is infringing on their civil rights. As long as religious organizations are not forced to do something that is against their moral and religious beliefs then I don't see any problem.

Just further proof that freedom of speeech, which all Americans used to enjoy, is now reserved for liberals only. If you're not a liberal you no longer have the right to say anything. At least in their twisted, sick, perverted view of things, that's how it works.